Just a quick update on Eivind Berge: According to this news account, the Norwegian Men’s Rights blogger is considered enough of a threat to police officers that his two-week detention has been extended by four more weeks. According to the prosecutor, the “risk of recurrence of new criminal offenses” makes releasing him dangerous.
See my posts here and here for more on his arrest.
@pecunium
“Jesus is part of the trinity; the incarnation, but he; as a man, wasn’t speaking of Himself, because he was unaware of his Divine Aspect, ergo when he speaks of “God” Jesus. the man, isn’t incorporated in the idea.”
So sayeth a feminist prophet.
———-
@Ithiliana
“Seems quite a few of us commenting on the SPLC’s report on the msogyny in the MRA”
Of that I have no doubt. Communism and feminism are one in the same.
“I’m pretty sure NWO thinks people who say things like “Jesus Tapdancing Christ” and such should be locked up and the key thrown away–for insulting his religion.”
No, but men show common curtesy. Women, as can clearly be seen by in even mainstream media lack basic curtesies. Women not being accountable for their actions in the west seem to revel in tormenting others. Since women spend a lifetime tormenting men sexually for their biological and emotional need, ridiculing a mans faith must pale in comparison. It’s progressive after all.
———-
@Pam
“You are decidedly anti-abortion whilst also being anti-”Big Daddy Gov’t” lending support for the mother and child because you believe that bearing that child and quite possibly living in abject poverty with that child is apt punishment for the woman who dares commit the grievous sin of having sexual relations while female.”
Abortion/Big Daddy/Woman in poverty. All intrinsically linked? Such a poor tactic to justify premeditated murder.
“And for those who are transgendered female, well, we can’t have THAT because she may not suffer those same consequences.”
There’s no such thing as transpeople. I’ve heard that seahorses sometimes change sexes when there’s a shortage of females. I’ve yet to see it in humans. When that starts to happen, then there’ll be transpeople.
———-
@ShadetheDruid
“A tiny lump of cells is not a baby.”
A tiny lump of cells is just as alive as a bigger lump of cells. The bigger lump of cells you are that’s alive today, is alive because the tiny lump of cells you were as a fetus wasn’t murdered. That’s a fact.
———–
@Argenti Aertheri
“Depending what strain of fundie NWO is”
I’m not a fundie of any particular strain. Hmmmm. Fundie implies a negative connotation. Rates right up there with racial and ethnic slurs. Of course you’ve been taught it’s OK to ridicule Christianity, it’s progressive to do so. And you are a feminist, find me a feminist site that doesn’t ridicule Christianity exclusively.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. What have you uncissed into?
NWO — again, you think too highly of yourself if you think my hatred of fundies has anything to do with you. This is just damned hilarious — “Of course you’ve been taught it’s OK to ridicule Christianity” — do you think all that discussion about Christianity came from knowledge that just like, sprang forth fully formed from foam or something? I was raised a damned fundie, and yes, I have issues with them, ones that are why I’m more or less an atheist these days and have nothing to do with you.
“Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. What have you uncissed into?”
You already “asked” (more like insulted) once, and I already said this once today, but fuck it — I’m an androgynous ninja, see my avatar there? (This statement, it is half true)
“And you are a feminist, find me a feminist site that doesn’t ridicule Christianity exclusively.”
You want me to do your homework while you’re insulting me? I’ll pass.
owly,
When you’ve finished foaming at the mouth and sneering at people who don’t conform to your standards, would or could you answer Nobinayamu’s question.
Nwoslave, are you aware that people who have abortions can then go on later to have babies on their own terms, with better financial means, lesser health risks, better preparation, etc.
That means that several people alive today wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for abortion.
And women who already have children and don’t feel like they can support another have abortions. It’s almost like they do it for their own reasons, not Mr. Slave’s oh-so-precious completely-new and never-been-addressed argument that somehow a ball of cells trumps an adult woman’s bodily integrity. Been donating lots of organs lately Slavey?
Pecunium was addressing one of your idiot god-bot arguments, but it somehow doesn’t count because he’s a feminist? That’s pretty much what I learned in church also (that Jesus is part of the holy trinity, but when he was a man was simply addressing God the Father,) though, raised Catholic over here, so it was always the Holy Ghost, which just lends itself to a high level of hilarity.
@Argenti Aertheri
“I’m an androgynous ninja”
Androgyny is an impossibility for a human. Although hermaphrodites are born with both sets of reproductive organs, one or both are inactive, they can’t self replicate. An example of a biological androgynous creature would be a snail. Since you’re not a snail, you must be a ninja.
————
@Myoo
“Nwoslave, are you aware that people who have abortions can then go on later to have babies on their own terms, with better financial means, lesser health risks, better preparation, etc.
That means that several people alive today wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for abortion.”
This ststement makes no sense. If a woman get’s pregnant twice and aborts one, how can an extra person be alive today that wouldn’t have been alive. One is dead one is alive.
———-
@amandajane5
“And women who already have children and don’t feel like they can support another have abortions. It’s almost like they do it for their own reasons, not Mr. Slave’s oh-so-precious completely-new and never-been-addressed argument that somehow a ball of cells trumps an adult woman’s bodily integrity. Been donating lots of organs lately Slavey?”
A woman donates no organ. If someone commits suicide they’ve killed their own body. When someone commits abortion they’ve killed another body. An excuse to kill is just that, an excuse. Dead is always dead. You be dead if you were successfully aborted. That’s a fact.
NWO: I have a question for you…
Who are you (or anyone) to tell a woman and a doctor they can’t do something? Seriously. You think it’s immoral for the state to say you need a license to drive on the roads the state makes.
You rant about “Big Daddy”. Ok, what’s the justification for banning abortion?
Be careful in your answer, because it is almost certain to have larger implications.
Amanadajane: Argenti and I got onto a tangent about the nature of the godhead, I wasn’t talking to NWO.
It confuses him to much to actually think about the scriptures in toto. He has his pet verses, and the rest is gibberish. Me, I’ve studied it, a lot. I’ve studied some other religions too (most esp. judaism, because of the intimate relationship it has to Christianity, esp. Roman Catholcism). I, for a short period; in my middle teens, contemplated taking orders, but the Church and I have a major philosophical difference on a matter of doctrine which made it impossible for me to take the required vows, and I didn’t.
Had I taken vows I don’t know that I would still be a priest (even as a Jesuit) because of other stances the church hasn’t modified, and which I can’t reconcile myself too. It’s not enough to make me renounce the Church entire, but those issues are enough to cause me to think I’d not have been able to remain in the functional arm of the Curia; the recent attempt to muzzle the Religious Orders of women would probably have been the last straw, had I not left yet.
But that’s a huge digression.
“Androgyny is an impossibility for a human. Although hermaphrodites are born with both sets of reproductive organs, one or both are inactive, they can’t self replicate. An example of a biological androgynous creature would be a snail. Since you’re not a snail, you must be a ninja.”
Ok, I’m a ninja…is insulting ninjas a good idea? (You think I don’t exist, I get it, really, I do, call me a ninja if you want, it’s the least offensive thing you’ve said today)
Myoo’s point was, I think, that if someone gets pregnant when young, or poor, having a child then will make them less able to have children in the future, because they’ll stay poor. Whereas not having children until one can afford it makes one able to have more children.
I would not be alive today if my grandmother had not had an abortion. It goes like this:
It was during the Depression. My grandfather was studying to be a dentist. My grandmother was working to support them while he was in school. She got pregnant. Two major problems with that – they couldn’t afford to support a child, and she could not afford to lose her job (which I’m sure would have happened if she’d continued the pregnancy). So she chose to abort. It was illegal, and unsafe, and it did not go well, and for a while they were afraid she wouldn’t be able to have children ever, but eventually she did. They had three – my two uncles and my mother (all born in the 40s, when my grandparents were financially secure).
Because my grandparents chose that abortion, they were able to provide safe housing, good nutrition, and a stable home environment for three children, and send them all to college, all of which in turn allowed them to go on to have good careers and families of their own.
I don’t know what would have happened if my grandmother had continued that pregnancy. If Grandpa had dropped out of school, would he have been able to get a job? Would they have been able to pay for food and a place to live? Would the baby have been born healthy, and if so, would it have had enough to eat growing up? What kind of life would they have had? I doubt that it would have been as good a life as what actually happened. And I doubt they would have gone on to have two more kids.
My grandmother was always very vocally pro-choice because of this, by the way.
I also wouldn’t be alive today if my parent’s first baby hadn’t died (because all my mother’s pregnancies were planned, and if David had lived it would have changed the timing of any subsequent birth(s)). He lived for only three days. I can’t even imagine what that was like for my parents.
So, apparently God disapproves of people having abortions in order to protect the well-being of their families, but is perfectly ok killing newborns.
Insulting ninjas? That’s not a good idea…
(skip forwards to 40 seconds in)
Slavey’s constant repetition of the same old shit is getting boring, so I’m now responding to him in the laziest way possible.
NWO, you blithering idiot, it’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that people cannot actually afford to feed and care for infinite children. It’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that the vast, vast, vast majority of people engage in some form of family planning, and that people who plan on having, say, three children, will generally stop trying to have children after they’ve had those three children. It’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that teensy weensy things like having a freaking child quite frequently affect the course of one’s life from that point onward. But given what you said here, it appears you are even unaware that people cannot get pregnant while already pregnant, and that’s a level of dumb that makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.
It is literally, unambiguously physically impossible that my friend’s very cute baby son would exist if she had not had an abortion a few months prior to getting pregnant with him. It’s also very likely that she wouldn’t exist, seeing as the reason she aborted was because of a medical situation that made pregnancy extremely dangerous. I get that you wish she were dead, seeing as she commits the horrific crime of existing while female on a daily basis – and IIRC, you were telling us just the other day how you celebrate the murder of a doctor who saved the lives of women just like her (because you’re a good Christian like that, natch) – but maybe you should learn at least the kindergarten-level version of how babies are made before you start ranting next time.
“nd IIRC, you were telling us just the other day how you celebrate the murder of a doctor who saved the lives of women just like her (because you’re a good Christian like that, natch)”
That was yesterday, on this thread.
Cassandra — I was thinking about just replying with how yep, I’m a ninja, and may already be under his bed, but this is NWO, he’ll take that as a threat even worded this way (NWO, I am not under your bed, and really, I don’t want to be anywhere near your bed; to everyone else, I am sorry I just made you think about NWO’s bed)
I was born in 1955. My mother who was the sole wage earner at the time (she dropped out of college and went to work fulltime to support my father’s PHD since his family cut him off when they got married) got pregnant. Early 1950s: the hormonal birth control was horrible, and Dear ol Dad refused to wear a condom. She had an illegal abortion.
Six or seven years later, when she’d just about decided to leave the narcissistic asshat, she found out she was pregnant (me), and decided to try one last time to make it work. Went sort of OK till he ran off with a graduate student when I was 18.
Erps, sorry: she had gotten pregnant earlier in their marriage!
NWO: Abortioneers murder 1.5 million people a year, about 60 million since R-v-W. Let me know when 60 million abortionists are murdered. Too funny. The terrorist’s calling some trying to stop the terror a terrorist. Is Tiller the killer dead? Just as dead as all those unborn children he slaughtered.
Do you really want to go there? Because if “saving lives” are the criteria, I can think of lots of causes that would justify killing more than abortion does, based on actual threats to humanity.
Why do I qualify it? Because you can’t justify it based on the idea that killing, qua killing, is wrong, since you are willing to murder in defense of your principle.
So the question is one of scope. Abortion isn’t a threat to the human race, it’s not even a threat to the population of the US. It’s not a problem; other than your pretense that it’s a moral problem†
But the world population isn’t in decline; and you’ve admitted that killing isn’t an absolute moral ill, if it’s being done to save lives. The question is scale. At what level does murder become a defensible proposition.‡
So things which threaten all of humanity seem to be a justifiable situation. That could include a lot of things you don’t mind. Cattle and dairy farming for instance (Methane is a much more effecting greenhouse gas, and those two industries produce a lot of it. Luckily it lasts a lot shorter time in the atmosphere, so reducing those industries would have a large benefit).
One could limit the human death by attacking the cattle. People, of course, would defend them. Those people could, under the NWO Doctrine (that it’s ok to kill people if you think it might save a life in the future;¤ be killed. One could even do it proactively.
That’s what you allow, with your asinine defense of terrorism against those who aren’t opposed to abortion.
† if you try to argue that it’s a moral problem the question is actually one of who gets to make the moral decision. The pregnant person and the doctor have decided what they think is moral, and you are asserting a right to interfere with their actions. As thinking person that’s inane… As a libertarian it’s indefensible. You claim to be the latter.
‡Which is ignoring that abortion isn’t murder. It’s not even killing. The fetus isn’t alive. It’s can’t support itself. If you took it out, very carefully, doing it no damage, it would stop growing.
So denying abortion is forcing the woman to keep the fetus alive. It’s a slippery slope. Where does the right of the State to compell stop. The same principle, that the potential of life in a fetus justifies State intervention to sustain it would also apply to thing like kidneys (you don’t need both of yours, and I know people who have died because they couldn’t get one), or maybe even a lung. It would certainly apply to blood (of which there is never enough in supply).
That’s your idea of a reasonable power to give the state, you who rant at the horror of The STATE insisting on certifying your understanding the rules of the road to drive, are choking on a gnat, relative to the actual things you would allow, based on the power you insist the state should have.
But I digress
¤ Not to be confused with the NWO Doctrine of Escalation, where any conflict with a woman must lead to her losing. If she is besting you verbally, slap her. If she defends herself, use a knife. If she has a knife (or can defeat one), pull a gun. If that doesn’t work get pals, or lie in ambush.
This ties into the NWO School of Self Defense, which says that once a woman has attacked you, in any way, in a public place; where one’s masculinity has therefore been insulted, one is allowed to leave, and come back with a weapon so that one can put her in her place.
Re: the NWO Doctrine of Escalation — he does get that women can own guns too, right? I mean, the whole thing is BS, but “if she insults you, get a bigger weapon” is kind of pointless if she’s got a gun. (No NWO, this is not a threat, it’s me being confused at the point of getting a bigger weapon, if you can leave to get a weapon, why not just leave?)
@Not NWO, no that is not a serious question, I get that the answer is “because my pride has been insulted WAAHHH”
Actual question for NWO — thoughts on the death penalty, as administered by the gov’n?
And since it is my favorite of questions, do also answer why you feel that way.
Thank you for amusing my randomness (assuming you actually answer the question that is).
Argenti: He does get that. His ideal is women living in slavery. Too cowed to assert their rights as people.
So, I gather NWO would call for the death penalty for ALL doctors and medical care personnel who provide abortions, and no doubt for the WOMEN who have abortions, right?
Right?
I really loathe people who call themselves pro life when it comes to fetal tissue but are pro-death-penalty.
Ithiliana: Me too. Then again, this is NWO we are talking about, there is only one consistent trait to his philosophy: “I want it to be that way.”
“I really loathe people who call themselves pro life when it comes to fetal tissue but are pro-death-penalty.”
I guess it’s “me three” at this point, but yeah, that was my point there.
“He does get that. His ideal is women living in slavery. Too cowed to assert their rights as people.”
…um, nothing left to lose doesn’t really bode well for absolute control. I realize the Owlyverse isn’t big on logic, but that’s quite the principle there, the actual implications don’t really seem to line up with wtf he wants.
And… NWO, just because I remember what started this little farrago of your newest misdirections.
some more fundamentalist terrorists
And some information about, lone wolves, and how the right/religious terrorists use them